Sugar....it brings me sugar (a look at 'some like it hot')

Primarily comedies derive their effect from sexually suggestive or slapstick scenarios resulting from the central characters 'mistaken identity', that is, from the gap between the characters passing within the diegesis and the spectators privileged position of knowledge(knowing the characters are in drag). Fuelled by heterosexual imperatives, the narrative progresses towards the climactic disclosure of the characters true identity. However, the narration repeatedly reminds the spectator of the true identity by the transparency of their disguise, or the involuntary intrusion of an 'innate' gender. For many spectators films like this allow for a rare and radical space for gender and sexual ambiguity -- that is, for queerness-- in mainstream products. Barsam explains that “Screen acting is a kind of art, in which an actor uses imagination, intelligence, psychology, memory, vocal technique, facial expression, body language and an over knowledge of the filmmaking process to realize, under the director’s guidance, the character created by the screenwriter.” (LM 196) Lemon and Curtis embodied more than the character created by the screen writers, they paralleled comedic acting and gender acting, while exploring themes such as; homoeroticism, sexual and gender ambiguity. The film itself is a capsule for gender ambiguity and is a rare space for social critiques. Lemons character sees sugar for the first time when he himself is dressed as a woman. On one hand he is infatuated with her in this moment, however he also admires her. He wants to be her. It becomes clear at this moment his own gender expression is ambiguous. That he not only enjoys being a 'woman'(in terms of gender expression) but he also is sexually attracted to them, making his character queer. The ultimate moment where the film makes definitive statements about gender expression is the moment Lemon tells Curtis he's going to marry the wealthy old man. When asked why a man would want to marry another man his answer is simple: Security. That not only speaks to a critique about gender expression but of the institution of marriage in this country and how it is more about property and trade then it will ever be about love.